Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused while committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape on the victim girl, had murdered the victim girl by strangulating her neck with his hands and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that, after committing the rape and murder of the victim girl, the accused had kept the dead body of the victim girl in his house and thereafter in the midnight, in order to screen the dead body and the offence of murder, the accused took the dead body of the victim girl and threw it in open site situated nearby his house and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.201 of IPC?

11. As this case is running around the victim girl child aged about 4 years and the allegation is that, she was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault coming within the definition Claue of Sec.5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 and as covered under the definition Clause of 2(a) of POCSO Act, 2012, as she [victim girl child falling within the purview of meaning of 'Child' as defined under Sec.2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012 i.e., below the age of 18 years] she was below the age of 12 years and Sec. 375 of IPC, having no worldly knowledge, capacity of knowing things and consequence of that fatal event and specifically she being a human being in the world and citizen of the country and civilian/resident of the said locality, residing with her poor mother and mother's mother, who are doing work for their survival [the family], specifically the children including the victim girl, to lead their day today life. It is further alleged that, the victim girl was not only subjected to rape, but, also she was killed brutally by the culprit amounting to murder, while committing rape on her, which will be as defined under Sec.300 of IPC, attracting the penal provision of Sec.302 of IPC.

28. It is not the prosecution case that, there was occasion for the victim girl to shout. But it is the specific case of the prosecution and also the voluntary statement of the accused, that, he induced the victim girl by offering chocolate [as because the victim girl was 4 years child and yielding to inducement, which would be natural for a child]. It cannot be expected that, such a small child by taking the chocolate, would shout, as the accused was known person to the victim girl. So also, it is the further case of the prosecution that, by offering the chocolate to the victim girl, the accused took her inside his house for his lust and thinking that, she would shout, he throttled her neck with his hands and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault also. Thus, question of shouting of the victim girl how could be it expected. It is also relevant to observe that, how can one could guess that, there was occasion for unfortunate child to shout, so that, she could get help and rescue from the clutches of such a unhuman assailant, which was cruel assault. Thus, by this suggestion, indirectly, supported the prosecution. It is considered to be admission in favour of the prosecution that, the accused had committed rape on the victim girl and murdered the victim girl, by pressing her neck to satisfy his lust, which discloses the criminal mind of the accused to commit rape and murder of the victim girl. From this also, it is clear that, the accused was with criminal mind, had committed criminal act.

31. Now coming to the evidence of Bhagyamma- PW8[CW15], who is the landlady of said Vatara. No-doubt, she also turned hostile to the prosecution case in connection with the incident that was caused by the accused by committing rape and murder and throwing the dead body on the open site. However, from her evidence certain material facts are brought on record by the prosecution that, the accused was also residing in one of the rented premises belonging to her [PW8], out of 8 houses, which were leased out to different persons and , specifically it is called as 'Bhagyamma Vatara'. Of course, she was not residing in any of the house, as she was residing in another house in the same locality. She knew PW7, who also constructed houses and let out the same to the tenants and was having retail shop in his house, in the same locality. She further stated that, accused and CWs-9 to 12 were residing in the rented premises belonging to her. Of course at this stage, the defence raised is that, the rented premises are owned by the husband of PW8. But, from the evidence of PW8, it is revealed that, about 7 years back, her husband died. So, it is quite natural, that she [PW8] being his wife might have been succeeded to the property of her husband. Apart from this, she was referred as owner and the land lady. These rented premises belongs to her and she has let out the same to different persons including the accused, are the admitted facts.